Irregardless

A previous poster mentioned the word "irregardless" as a particular pet peeve, asserting that it is not a word.
It reminds me of a pastor at one of our previous churches who used the word frequently, sometimes two or three times in a sermon. I was torn between resisting my genetic predilection to correct other people's English and my concern that his messages were weakened by his misuse of the word.

I finally yielded to the temptation to tell him, justifying my decision by asking what I would want me to do if I were him. I would absolutely want to be told. I appreciate it when a reader corrects me on usage, even if I am momentarily embarrassed since what is already in print can't be unpublished.

Anyway, I was stunned by his reaction. He said, "Of course irregardless is a word." He refused to believe otherwise. I suggested he look it up. He said he didn't need to; he was certain it was a word. End of conversation.

So is it a word or isn't it?

The American Heritage calls irregardless "non-standard" for "regardless" and expounds: "The label Non-Standard does only approximate justice to the status of irregardless. More precisely, it is a form that many people mistakenly believe to be a correct usage in formal style but that in fact has no legitimate antecedents in either standard or non-standard varieties.

In other words, it barely rises to the level of substandard.

Merriam-Webster says this:
"Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that 'there is no such word.' There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

Conclusion: Irregardless is a word. But it's the wrong word.